As far as I can tell, men more readily reject religion. Without fathers embracing the church, religion will die out. A while back I read that 2/3 of children attend church as adults if their fathers regularly attended throughout their childhood. Maternal attendance doesn't seem to matter. Maintain the separation of church and state and the country will gradually become less religious as a whole. However, people don't want to "come out" as atheists because they don't want to look like assholes. Let the losers be the assholes.

A real troll would be to find that God's Diner or whatever it was called comic strip that had Jesus drinking away his woes with the pagan goddess of easter talking about how cute the eggs and little bunnies are, make a thousand copies, place them in eggs with hersey kisses and place them all over an egg hunt.

At least I'd do that if I had help in placing the eggs and I had a copy of that comic strip.

"Requiring evidence that something exists before believing in it is a form of faith?"

Strongly disbelieving something without proof most certainly is.I am sure this will turn into another long song and dance and twisting of words but atheists have no more proof for what they disbelieve than what most believers do for what they do believe.Besides, you can't prove a negative.

Kurmudgeon:I am sure this will turn into another long song and dance and twisting of words but atheists have no more proof for what they disbelieve than what most believers do for what they do believe.Besides, you can't prove a negative.

"Requiring evidence that something exists before believing in it is a form of faith?"

Strongly disbelieving something without proof most certainly is.I am sure this will turn into another long song and dance and twisting of words but atheists have no more proof for what they disbelieve than what most believers do for what they do believe.Besides, you can't prove a negative.

No, it's just skepticism. You don't need any faith to not believe in something. It's the default position. It doesn't require proving a negative, because the burden of proof is on the person making the claim that something exists.

"Requiring evidence that something exists before believing in it is a form of faith?"

Strongly disbelieving something without proof most certainly is.I am sure this will turn into another long song and dance and twisting of words but atheists have no more proof for what they disbelieve than what most believers do for what they do believe.Besides, you can't prove a negative.

What god(s) should people believe in and why? Is your lack of belief in Apollo a matter of faith? Can you prove that Apollo does not exist? If you cannot, is that a compelling reason to believe that such a being exists?

"Requiring evidence that something exists before believing in it is a form of faith?"

Strongly disbelieving something without proof most certainly is.I am sure this will turn into another long song and dance and twisting of words but atheists have no more proof for what they disbelieve than what most believers do for what they do believe.Besides, you can't prove a negative.

What god(s) should people believe in and why? Is your lack of belief in Apollo a matter of faith? Can you prove that Apollo does not exist? If you cannot, is that a compelling reason to believe that such a being exists?

Requiring evidence that something exists before believing in it is a form of faith?

When there is no evidence to support either side of the argument, any assertion on either side is ultimately based on faith.

It might help to try to define what it is that you don't believe in.

The only assertion that I'm making is that, if I do not find the evidence/arguments in favor of a proposition compelling, I'm not going to agree that the proposition in question is likely to be true. You know, extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence and all of that.

had98c:No, it's just skepticism. You don't need any faith to not believe in something. It's the default position.

You can't have skepticism until you have something to be skeptical of.Also:skep·tic /ˈskeptik/Noun1.A person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.2.A person who doubts the truth of Christianity and other religions; an atheist or agnostic.

Note there is no mention of actual proof there, you can do it without proof.If you have no proof, your assumption is a matter of faith, even if not an organized one.

Repo Man:common sense is an oxymoron: Repo Man: Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: An absence of belief is not based on faith.

A strong determination not to believe without evidence is.

Requiring evidence that something exists before believing in it is a form of faith?

When there is no evidence to support either side of the argument, any assertion on either side is ultimately based on faith.

It might help to try to define what it is that you don't believe in.

The only assertion that I'm making is that, if I do not find the evidence/arguments in favor of a proposition compelling, I'm not going to agree that the proposition in question is likely to be true. You know, extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence and all of that.

I agree, but stating that something is unlikely is not the same as claiming that it is impossible.

For the record, I don't believe that the existence of God(s) CAN be proven; and furthermore, given the fact that there seem to be about as many definitions of "god" as there are believers, I find it pointless to believe in one particular definition over any of the others.

AliceBToklasLives:Kurmudgeon: skep·tic /ˈskeptik/Noun1.A person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.2.A person who doubts the truth of Christianity and other religions; an atheist or agnostic

I'm skeptical of this definition.

I'm skeptical of either his intelligence or his honesty, depending on whether he's a troll or just stupid.

common sense is an oxymoron:Repo Man: common sense is an oxymoron: Repo Man: Kurmudgeon: Repo Man: An absence of belief is not based on faith.

A strong determination not to believe without evidence is.

Requiring evidence that something exists before believing in it is a form of faith?

When there is no evidence to support either side of the argument, any assertion on either side is ultimately based on faith.

It might help to try to define what it is that you don't believe in.

The only assertion that I'm making is that, if I do not find the evidence/arguments in favor of a proposition compelling, I'm not going to agree that the proposition in question is likely to be true. You know, extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence and all of that.

I agree, but stating that something is unlikely is not the same as claiming that it is impossible.

For the record, I don't believe that the existence of God(s) CAN be proven; and furthermore, given the fact that there seem to be about as many definitions of "god" as there are believers, I find it pointless to believe in one particular definition over any of the others.

common sense is an oxymoron:whidbey: Giltric: My antiquated world view is "mind your own business" something that atheists nor the religious have a grasp of.

Oh I have a total grasp of it. But sometimes minding one's own business allows ignorance and injustices to continue unchallenged. See=any civil rights issue of the past 100 years.

But as a free thinking man of the times you do not see the irnoy of the atheists process to convert people to atheism or the attempted conversion? You sound very religiously atheist.

Free-thinkers don't try to push the fallacy that a system based on reason and knowledge is somehow a "religion." Troll harder, dude.

Atheism isn't a religion, but it is based on faith rather than irrefutable evidence.

Prove it.

No, seriously, I want you to prove that my unwillingness to support your bald assertion is a form of "faith." Tell me, with a strait face, that my unwillingness to accept your claims requires as much "faith" as your willingness to propose them.

Theists say "there is a god." We agree that this claim requires "faith."

One thing I always enjoy about these threads is the special pleading. The Christian theists consider it insulting when you lump their god in with all of the others. Of course they don't believe in Zeus or Apollo, or Isis - those gods are just made up! it's like what Doug Stanhope said: "That's why they have to pump into your head when you're still little... ...and your brain grows around it like a clubfoot."

s2s2s2:So you have examined all evidence of any kind, any where, and determined, through your own research, that there exists no evidence pointing toward the existence of some extra terrestrial intelligence?

s2s2s2:So you have examined all evidence of any kind, any where, and determined, through your own research, that there exists no evidence pointing toward the existence of some extra terrestrial intelligence?

I bet you're just really confident in what you believe. If only there was a word for that.